The Abortion Compromise Has Died, Long Live Secular Poland!

“Why should the state protect bishops from the anger of the faithful? If within just 30 years, the Church, with its hybris, hypocrisy and mercilessness, has created so many enemies? It is not a problem that should be solved by the secular state”, argue Jarosław Makowski and Kazimierz Bem

The ruling of the pseudo-Tribunal that de facto banned abortion is not only a cruelty to women ordered by Jarosław Kaczyński but also the culmination of a process, which started in 1989, of turning Poland into a religious state. Although the chairman from Żoliborz [editor’s note: Jarosław Kaczyński] might not have realised it, it also implies the resetting of the public debate. We are going back to 1989 and to the discussion on rights of an individual and the state-Church relationship. This time, however, without the shadow of John Paul II and without any sentiments of the proclaimed invaluable contributions of the Church.

We do not want to repeat at length what we have written many times before. Nevertheless, it is important to remember one thing: since 1989, the post-Solidarity political elite has not been able to gain even a slice of independence from the Roman Catholic Church. In 1993 the extremely restrictive anti-abortion law was passed as a “gift to John Paul II”.

This was done against the will of the people and called a “compromise”.

When the Democratic Left Alliance (SLD) later tried to relax the law in 1997, the Constitutional Tribunal, with Professor Andrzej Zoll’s pen acting as a conduit to the will of the Church, and — almost as Mrs Julia Przyłębska 23 years later — not only threw the amendments into the trash but additionally, with a weak ruling, it inserted the “protection of the conceived life” to the new Constitution.

It went on downhill from there: 20 years later, the Constitutional Tribunal decided that the doctor’s conscience clause is of the utmost importance and thus he or she may refuse to inform a woman of the whereabouts of a hospital that would perform legal abortion. The ruling was issued by another male, Professor Andrzej Rzepliński, who was honoured with the papal order, which cast doubts on his impartiality. This whole process was brought to a close when, 12 days ago, a pseudo-Court, run by the Law and Justice political commissars, destroyed what remained of women’s rights by issuing a ruling prohibiting abortion in the case of serious defects to the foetus.

After long agonising struggle, the infamous “abortion compromise” died. It was never a compromise, but a fiefdom of Catholic politicians for Pope John Paul II. It was a sacrifice of the bodies of women, made by men to another man who made the fight against abortion his idée fixe.

Thursday’s ruling was the Law and Justice’s payment for the Church’s silent support in the dismantling of the rule of law and the Constitution over the last five years.

There is no return to compromise

We are both deeply outraged by this pseudo-judgment and sympathise with people’s peaceful marches. This rightful anger must be transformed into creative thinking and strategic action for the future. So what can we do? Firstly, the democratic opposition must understand that there is no return to the so-called compromise. It won’t come back. The Law and Justice and the Church brutally broke the rules of the game. To do it, they cynically put the “gloves of the judges” on their hands, as the head of the Polish episcopate, Archbishop Stanisław Gądecki, noted in his Sunday statement, which was worthy of Pilate himself.

So let’s bury this “compromise” monster, just as the Church will bury seriously handicapped children, which women will have to give birth to so that — as Kaczyński said — “a priest can baptise them”.

The opposition must now boldly take up the gauntlet to clearly and unequivocally stand up for women’s demand for a new law.

Jarosław Kaczyński also admitted this inadvertently, when in his Tuesday (27 October) address, resembling the introduction of martial law by General Jaruzelski, he called for “defending Poland and defending the Church”. Therefore, the chairman of the Law and Justice admitted that the Constitution of 1997, massacred by him, and the pseudo-Tribunal consisting of his puppets, is to serve only the party interests of his party and Church. This is how Kaczyński “reset the constitutional debate” and brought us back into 1989. The opposition must now take the challenge and go to the next elections with the primary aim of a serious revision of the 1997 Constitution in a modern spirit — a Constitution for the 21st century.

Secondly, this pseudo-ruling will resume the discussion on the relation between the state and the Church. The Church and the Law and Justice have not only repealed abortion regulations, but also the entire post-Solidarity constitutional order. Since 1989, we have been constantly reminded that, due to its “struggle against communism”, the Church deserves special privileges (financial, legal, constitutional) rendering the notion of a “friendly separation between the Church and the state”as bizarre fiction. This is why religion is legalised in schools or why chaplains in secular offices and services are paid for using taxpayers’ money.

The Law and Justice added to this a de facto impunity for paedophile priests and bishops covering for them. The symbol of this sick symbiosis were pictures of police officers defending the doors of churches and cathedrals from outraged Polish women.

John Paul II is no longer here

On Thursday 22 October, the 1989 “gratitude agreement” of the Solidarity leaders expired. In its entirety. After thirty years, Poles have the right to demand a change of ideological regime. Religion classes in public schools, written and unwritten privileges, concordat, religious understanding of marriage: it is the time to reopen the public debate about all these things. Free from the “debt of gratitude” for the unclear past contribution of the Church. This is what the protesters — and among them the faithful — want.

Today, we must also ask ourselves if the state should protect priests and bishops from the anger of their own faithful? Will there be a single bishop in the episcopate who will ask himself the following questions:

What have we done wrong that means these young people do not even want to talk to us? Why do we, by preaching the Gospel of love, only incite anger among these mainly young protesters?

However, the bishops, who had barricaded themselves in their palaces and have only now realised how detached their moral teaching is from reality, avoid such questions as much as they can. But there are more of them: why should the state enforce the rules of one religious association and impose them on others, regardless of their religion or lack thereof? Why should the state regulate a woman’s intimate life? And why should what some Catholic priests are doing with children in the quiet of the rectory go unpunished? All this must once again be the subject of open public debate.

Paradoxically, the absence of John Paul II and the subsequent press revelations about the ineptitude (to put it mildly) of him and those surrounding him in the fight against paedophilia, also in Poland, allow for a much more unrestrained constitutional debate today than that of 30 years ago. John Paul II may be a saint to the faithful of the Roman Catholic Church, but this does not matter in a modern, democratic state.

More policemen than believers

Thirdly, the opposition must make a proposal to change the Constitution and create a fully secular state. The current system has collapsed with a bang. Liberal democracy creates conditions for every church (not only Roman Catholic) to preach the Gospel freely. And the Church needs nothing else for its mission. It does not need any power other than power over the spirits of the believers. The moment when the Church demands political power and the ability to determine law is the moment it exposes its own weakness. And wanting to replace the Good Word with a “good law” or a “godly” ruling by the so-called Constitutional Tribunal equals to moral and theological defeat.

There is something depressing and unsettling about seeing the cathedrals in Poznań and Łódź having more policemen protecting them on Sunday than the number of faithful inside.

Today, the greatest enemies of the Church are not society or modernity. The greatest enemy of the Church is itself. And politicians who think that it is better to align with the priest than with God. Together with the hierarchs, they decide on the fate of the others: reducing women to the role of incubators “to the conceived lives” or proposing a “state of emergency” to protect the bishop’s curia.

Such an attitude is all the more surprising because the Second Vatican Council decided that the Church and the state should respect the principle of autonomy, that is, the separation between the state and the Church. Enforcing this principle by the Church in Poland is, in our opinion, the only element of the Church’s teaching that secular Poland should implement in the 21st century.

When in 1905 the famous law on state secularism was presented in the National Assembly of France, which radically separated the Catholic Church from the Third Republic, one of the ultra-Catholic and right-wing members of parliament shouted to the legislator, who was an evangelist: “this is your revenge for St Bartholomew’s Night!”

For many laymen and bishops, a similar separation between Church and state in Poland is likely to be seen as a revenge of the left, feminists, LGBT movement, women and liberals. This is simply not true. The discussion about the secularity of Poland in the 21st century is not led by revenge or hatred, but by a civilizational need. And if within just 30 years, the Church, with its hybris, hypocrisy and mercilessness, has manage to create so many enemies… well, this is not a problem that should be solved by the secular state. It is a problem of the Church which cannot be solved by sending policemen to protect the empty temples.

Perhaps, it can be solved if priests go out of churches and instead of talking to people, listen to them for the first time in their lives. Not as penitents, but as partners in dialogue.

This article was originally published in OKO.press on 11/2/2020 and translated by Forum.eu.